Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 4/10/2008 4:37:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 4:40:49 PM EST by nobby]
Two couples; A & B. Both couples have the exact same income and live in a so-called trendy area and have equally trendy cars and other bling-bling. Couple A is child-free (due to a conscious decision NOT to have kids). On the other hand, couple B made a conscious decision to have a child. Furthermore, couple B's kid goes to government schools and will be eligible for various college scholarships.

Why the hell does couple A pay more taxes than couple B? Or put another way, why does couple A pay for a conscious decision (kids) made by couple B?

Shouldn't couple B actually pay MORE than couple A since B's kid directly benefits from taxes paid?

If couple B needs the money so much, would it be wrong to expect them to consider living in a less trendy area and having less bling-bling rather than simply redistributing couple A's money to couple B?

I'm a fairly dumb guy so please help me out by keeping comments focused on the scenario presented above.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:38:50 PM EST
OST.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:40:29 PM EST
Because we're breeding future taxpayers.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:41:13 PM EST
I've been asking this for years and the only answer I got was "paying taxes for public schools etc. benefits everyone since education will always improve society"
Bah humbug is what I say.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:41:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 4:43:57 PM EST by shotar]
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:41:58 PM EST
cause we have a broke tax system.

why did we borrow billions of dollars from china

to give every one in the country the bush bucks

bonus this year.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:42:30 PM EST
Maybe cause people with kids put more $ into the economy having to buy food, clothes, diapers, etc ? I don't know the real answer.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:42:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By nobby:
Two couples; A & B. Both couples have the exact same income and live in a so-called trendy area and have equally trendy cars and other bling-bling. Couple A is child-free (due to a concious decision NOT to have kids). On the other hand, couple B made a conscious decision to have a child. Furthermore, couple B's kid goes to government schools and will be eligible for various college scholarships.

Why the hell does couple A pay more taxes than couple B? Or put another way, why does couple A pay for a conscious made by decision couple B?

Shouldn't couple B actually pay MORE than couple A since B's kid directly benefits from taxes paid?

If couple B needs the money so much, would it be wrong to expect them to consider living in a less trendy area and less bling-bling rather than giving them couple A's money?

I'm a fairly dumb guy so please help me out by keeping comments focused on the scenario presented above.


Although it is without the bling-bling, thi is the same problem my wife and I have every year. We decided a long time ago to not have children. Now we work all year and find out that we are getting back maybe $200 from the gubmint. Guess that's a good thing that we're not letting someone else use our money. One set of our friends has been married for same amount of time as us, have a house that cost $500 more than ours and they have two kids. This year their tax refund was almost $5000.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:42:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By nobby:
Two couples; A & B. Both couples have the exact same income and live in a so-called trendy area and have equally trendy cars and other bling-bling. Couple A is child-free (due to a concious decision NOT to have kids). On the other hand, couple B made a conscious decision to have a child. Furthermore, couple B's kid goes to government schools and will be eligible for various college scholarships.

Why the hell does couple A pay more taxes than couple B? Or put another way, why does couple A pay for a conscious made by decision couple B?

Shouldn't couple B actually pay MORE than couple A since B's kid directly benefits from taxes paid?

If couple B needs the money so much, would it be wrong to expect them to consider living in a less trendy area and less bling-bling rather than giving them couple A's money?

I'm a fairly dumb guy so please help me out by keeping comments focused on the scenario presented above.


The goverment steals your money in the form of taxes. It then takes this money and redristributes it to other people in the form of tax credits, welfare, corperate buyouts....

The vipers that run for office use the distribution of these benifits to underhandedly purchase votes at election time.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:45:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By GaryM:
I've been asking this for years and the only answer I got was "paying taxes for public schools etc. benefits everyone since education will always improve society"
Bah humbug is what I say.


Yeah, creating a generation of semi literate pussies is a benifit to all of us.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:45:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:
Because we're breeding future taxpayers revenue units.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:45:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:
Because we're breeding future taxpayers.


Bingo


- BG
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:46:49 PM EST
Please guys, let's not turn this into a generic tax bashing discussion. I'm sure other threads are tackling that. I really would like answers to the scenario I presented.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:47:21 PM EST
Truth be told, I believe it is socially motivated to encourage parents to have kids. Look at different countries and their "birth rate crises". Latest one I read was Japan, there was jsut a thread about it yesterday, I think. Russia has big problems with declining populations. In Nazi Germany, they gave out medals, home appliances and forgave loans as rewards for pumping out kids to replace the WW1 losses.

Taking it away would be considered anti-family.

Oh, and make enough money, and the deduction goes away anyway.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:49:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Utah_Sniper:
Although it is without the bling-bling, thi is the same problem my wife and I have every year. We decided a long time ago to not have children. Now we work all year and find out that we are getting back maybe $200 from the gubmint. Guess that's a good thing that we're not letting someone else use our money. One set of our friends has been married for same amount of time as us, have a house that cost $500 more than ours and they have two kids. This year their tax refund was almost $5000.


The amount of your tax refund has nothing to do with how much money you make or how many deductions or exemptions you have.

If they learned how to fill out a W-4, they wouldn't be giving the .gov an interest free loan of $5,000.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:49:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:50:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By nobby:
Please guys, let's not turn this into a generic tax bashing discussion. I'm sure other threads are tackling that. I really would like answers to the scenario I presented.


What better way to perpetuate the system than ensuring that dumb, easily controlled peasants are in the overwhelming majority?
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:51:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 4:52:13 PM EST by ChiefPilot]

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:
Truth be told, I believe it is socially motivated to encourage parents to have kids. Look at different countries and their "birth rate crises". Latest one I read was Japan, there was jsut a thread about it yesterday, I think. Russia has big problems with declining populations. In Nazi Germany, they gave out medals, home appliances and forgave loans as rewards for pumping out kids to replace the WW1 losses.

Taking it away would be considered anti-family.

Oh, and make enough money, and the deduction goes away anyway.


It is definately in the nation's best interests to replace the population....
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:52:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 4:54:53 PM EST by nobby]

Originally Posted By strat81:

The amount of your tax refund has nothing to do with how much money you make or how many deductions or exemptions you have.

If they learned how to fill out a W-4, they wouldn't be giving the .gov an interest free loan of $5,000.


Are you saying that A & B are taxed at the same rate, but B just has more taxes deducted during the year, resulting in a bigger refund? If that's what you're saying, I don't buy it because B still gets more bang for buck, even if both A & B owed zero on April 15.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:52:48 PM EST
Simple because their are more couples with kids than without kids. The majority get to make the rules to benifit themselves at the expense of others.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:54:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By Utah_Sniper:

Originally Posted By nobby:
Two couples; A & B. Both couples have the exact same income and live in a so-called trendy area and have equally trendy cars and other bling-bling. Couple A is child-free (due to a concious decision NOT to have kids). On the other hand, couple B made a conscious decision to have a child. Furthermore, couple B's kid goes to government schools and will be eligible for various college scholarships.

Why the hell does couple A pay more taxes than couple B? Or put another way, why does couple A pay for a conscious made by decision couple B?

Shouldn't couple B actually pay MORE than couple A since B's kid directly benefits from taxes paid?

If couple B needs the money so much, would it be wrong to expect them to consider living in a less trendy area and less bling-bling rather than giving them couple A's money?

I'm a fairly dumb guy so please help me out by keeping comments focused on the scenario presented above.


Although it is without the bling-bling, thi is the same problem my wife and I have every year. We decided a long time ago to not have children. Now we work all year and find out that we are getting back maybe $200 from the gubmint. Guess that's a good thing that we're not letting someone else use our money. One set of our friends has been married for same amount of time as us, have a house that cost $500 more than ours and they have two kids. This year their tax refund was almost $5000.


Your refund has to do with how much you tell the government to withhold. Two guys could be in the exact same financial position, but one guy instructs for tax withholdings based on three deductions and the other guy on one. If two is correct, then one guy gets a refund and the other guy will owe.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:56:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


The answer is very simple - it's an illustration of the majority of the voters voting themselves benefits at the expense of the minority.

the explanation is no more complicated than that.


Correct, give the Prof. a cookie!
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:57:05 PM EST
socialism
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 4:57:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 5:05:05 PM EST by nobby]
Thelastgunslinger,

Are you saying that A & B are taxed at the same rate, but B just has more taxes deducted during the year, the result is a bigger refund? If that's what you're saying, I disagree because B still gets more bang for buck, even if both A & B owed zero on April 15. It's not about who get's the biggest refund; it's about who's worse off--penalized, if you will--which, to me, is clearly A.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:06:40 PM EST
And why does Couple A have to pay school taxes on their property tax bill?
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:07:04 PM EST
Well, I understand your point of view, but the way I look at it is we all get a standard deduction, which is reasonable IMO to keep the people at the low end of the income scale from getting too desperate, desperate people do desperate things, and so everyone benefits from letting people keep the first few thousand dollars in income tax free.

Personally I think the standard deduction should equal the poverty level, but that's another subject that'll take us way off topic...

So in a system where everyone gets a break, it makes sense to give the kid a break too. It doesn't matter that he isn't the one making the money really, believe me the kid costs way more than the tax benefit.

There's a whole bunch of stuff about the way government functions and how taxes are allocated that I'd change before cutting out the measly tax benefits of claiming dependents, at least so long as they're not getting back more than they pay in, which is another issue.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:12:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 5:12:55 PM EST by NoStockBikes]
Copied from: staff.jccc.net/swilson/businessmath/fit.htm


Exemptions were available for each household from the beginning, but married couple exemptions were not necessarily double the value of a single exemption. Smaller exemptions for dependents were introduced in 1917. Exemption values were equalized (per person) in 1944.


Interesting key dates relating to dependent exemption (introduction and increase)
1917.
1944.

Hmm.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:12:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 5:15:39 PM EST by nobby]

Originally Posted By K2QB3:


So in a system where everyone gets a break, it makes sense to give the kid a break too. It doesn't matter that he isn't the one making the money really, believe me the kid costs way more than the tax benefit.

.


We are not talking about the kid, we're talking about the disparity in taxation of couples A & B. Using your logic, someone who drives a Mercedes that requires premium fuel deserves a break because his costs are higher than the guy who chooses to walk, correct?
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:17:39 PM EST
Income is what you receive minus your cost. WHY does the IRS get to say my time and labor is worth ZERO?

Capital gains should reflect an increase in VALUE. Why does the IRS get to tax the increase that is due to inflation?

How come not having kids doesn't show up in my freaking 'carbon footprint' but my truck DOES?

April 15th... the REAL April Fools Day.

Kid subsidies are the small part of the problem.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:18:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:

So in a system where everyone gets a break...


Is *letting* me keep some of my stuff the break you are referring to? That's not my idea of a break.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:21:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By nobby:

Originally Posted By K2QB3:


So in a system where everyone gets a break, it makes sense to give the kid a break too. It doesn't matter that he isn't the one making the money really, believe me the kid costs way more than the tax benefit.

.


Using your logic, someone who drives a Mercedes that requires premium fuel deserves a break because his costs are higher than the guy who decides to ride a trouble-free moped, correct?


Of course not.

It isn't about costs, it's about the number of citizens in the household. And it really isn't about wealth redistribution either, until they make it so by paying out more than people pay in, because as I said that's a different issue.

If there are deductions built into the system for every taxpayer, then it isn't unreasonable to build in deductions for dependent children as well.

If you want to argue against deductions entirely as part of an arguement against progressive taxation, then that makes sense, but so long as we have brutally regressive payroll taxes and an inflationary, debt based monetary system (which is incredibly regressive, so much so that I've made more money from asset appreciation than wages in my lifetime, and I'm not all that wealthy or old) a progressive income tax system isn't as unfair as people like to make it out to be.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:23:16 PM EST
why can't a single person claim head of household deduction? they are the heads of their own households.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:25:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By snakeshooter1:
why can't a single person claim head of household deduction? they are the heads of their own households.

According to the IRS, you need dependents to have a household.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:38:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:

If there are deductions built into the system for every taxpayer, then it isn't unreasonable to build in deductions for dependent children as well?




If I understand your question, yes--it is VERY unreasonable to penalize couple A for NOT having a child whose well-being is subsidized by tax dollars. It is backwards if you ask me. The more you (through your kid) benefit from taxpayer-funded stuff, the more you should pay and vice-versa. I'll even go so far as to say I can tolerate (I guess)A & B paying the same, but be damned if A should pay more than B.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:44:21 PM EST
my wife and I adopted a special needs child Last Year. Our Son gets Medicaid( no co pay for anything ) until he is 18.He will also get a Full Scholarship to Any Texas State university he gets into. We get a Stipend of over 500 dollars a month until he is 18.

And we got got an 11,000 dollar adoption credit on top of the other child credits on our taxes this year.
Talk about doing the snoopy dance


P. S.

We had no idea, that any of these things were provided until after we started the adoption process

should I pay more taxes ?

I dont think so .
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:45:24 PM EST
waaahhhh Quit your bitching. The 3 grand or so per kid is a drop in the pot. Kids are fucking expensive. They constantly out grow their clothes, they eat you out of house and home. and they want toys, toys, toys. Then some of them need braces, glasses, etc.

Someone has to have kids or else we will lapse into a negative birth rate. Furthermore, we will become eclipsed by the immigrants.

Your school taxes are usually local and paid via sales or property taxes. Gov. grants do happen, but they make money on loans. College scholarships are paid by the colleges or private entities.

Its an investment in our future.

PS - have a kid. You need someone to love you when you are old and need your colostomy bag changed.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:48:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Slimm:
my wife and I adopted a special needs child Last Year. Our Son gets Medicaid( no co pay for anything ) until he is 18.He will also get a Full Scholarship to Any Texas State university he gets into. We get a Stipend of over 500 dollars a month until he is 18.

And we got got an 11,000 dollar adoption credit on top of the other child credits on our taxes this year.
Talk about doing the snoopy dance


P. S.

We had no idea, that any of these things were provided until after we started the adoption process

should I pay more taxes ?

I dont think so .


All else being equal, should the next couple who chose NOT to take on liabilities (kids, in this case) pay MORE than you?
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:51:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mister44:
waaahhhh Quit your bitching. The 3 grand or so per kid is a drop in the pot. Kids are fucking expensive. They constantly out grow their clothes, they eat you out of house and home. and they want toys, toys, toys. Then some of them need braces, glasses, etc.

Someone has to have kids or else we will lapse into a negative birth rate. Furthermore, we will become eclipsed by the immigrants.

Your school taxes are usually local and paid via sales or property taxes. Gov. grants do happen, but they make money on loans. College scholarships are paid by the colleges or private entities.

Its an investment in our future.

PS - have a kid. You need someone to love you when you are old and need your colostomy bag changed.



Well said.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:57:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mister44:
waaahhhh Quit your bitching. The 3 grand or so per kid is a drop in the pot. Kids are fucking expensive. They constantly out grow their clothes, they eat you out of house and home. and they want toys, toys, toys. Then some of them need braces, glasses, etc.



Sounds like a list of couple A's problems. Furthermore, it sounds like a welfare mentality. Couple A could give a shit what toys couple B's kid needs--and surely they require the best and newest! Do they also need to live in a trendy hood? Still not sure why couple A needs to pay more taxes than couple B.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 5:59:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By nobby:
Two couples; A & B. Both couples have the exact same income and live in a so-called trendy area and have equally trendy cars and other bling-bling. Couple A is child-free (due to a conscious decision NOT to have kids). On the other hand, couple B made a conscious decision to have a child. Furthermore, couple B's kid goes to government schools and will be eligible for various college scholarships.

Why the hell does couple A pay more taxes than couple B? Or put another way, why does couple A pay for a conscious decision (kids) made by couple B?

Shouldn't couple B actually pay MORE than couple A since B's kid directly benefits from taxes paid?

If couple B needs the money so much, would it be wrong to expect them to consider living in a less trendy area and having less bling-bling rather than simply redistributing couple A's money to couple B?

I'm a fairly dumb guy so please help me out by keeping comments focused on the scenario presented above.



Brother, I've been with you on this question for the last 20 fucking years.

Here's another one for you. 2 houses sit side by side. one is valued at $200,000 and one is valued at $100,000. The one for $200k has one person living in it and the $100k has a family of 4 living in it. Why the fuck should the guy living in his $200k home pay more in property taxes for the benefit of the family? Shouldn't the family pay more since they use the roads and all other county and state services more????


Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:00:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 6:07:39 PM EST by nobby]

Originally Posted By Mister44:

You need someone to love you when you are old and need your colostomy bag changed.


No I won't. Using to your logic, someone else's kids--hopefully yours in return for the education I funded--will be responsible for me and my hip-mounted shit sack. And rest assured, I'll keep it full to the brim. You can relate.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:01:24 PM EST
Shit, try having no kids, renting, and being married. Penalize my wife and I because I don't have kids and am married to someone who makes significantly less than I do. It's the American way!
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:06:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:
Truth be told, I believe it is socially motivated to encourage parents to have kids. Look at different countries and their "birth rate crises". Latest one I read was Japan, there was jsut a thread about it yesterday, I think. Russia has big problems with declining populations. In Nazi Germany, they gave out medals, home appliances and forgave loans as rewards for pumping out kids to replace the WW1 losses.


Yes, the Japanese discussion was in my "Hot Robot" thread, which I had anticipated would be a discussion of Japanese politics or econ, but which descended into a series of pics of various hot robots...
Robots Seen Doing Work of 3.5 Million in Japan
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:07:51 PM EST
It seems pretty simple to me;

Kids are money and time magnets. Food, clothing, school supplies, educational supplies, hobbies blah blah blah ad infinitim...

Pure and simple it's an investment in the future. Who knows when the next great mind of this nation will show up. People have to have kids willingly and might I add happily to make that happen to any medium of success.

I take exception to the examples given. The last time I looked there wasn't a single one of my friends with kids that are living as well as the childless masses this country produces these days. No Bling bling car, house etc... Most people are investing their money either in education investments or retirement funds etc. At least those of us who give a shit do I should say.

I have friends that float this arguement all the time. It's self centered at best. We all contribute in one way or another to the well being of this country. Some in ways other than what they think is fair. Get used to it.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:08:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 6:09:50 PM EST by hotbiggun42]

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:
Truth be told, I believe it is socially motivated to encourage parents to have kids. Look at different countries and their "birth rate crises". Latest one I read was Japan, there was jsut a thread about it yesterday, I think. Russia has big problems with declining populations. In Nazi Germany, they gave out medals, home appliances and forgave loans as rewards for pumping out kids to replace the WW1 losses.

Taking it away would be considered anti-family.

Oh, and make enough money, and the deduction goes away anyway.


this is the correct answer
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:10:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/10/2008 6:16:06 PM EST by nobby]

Originally Posted By bosifus:
The last time I looked there wasn't a single one of my friends with kids that are living as well as the childless masses this country produces these days.



Really? My experience is different so where does that leave us? Do you know the difference between childless and child-free?
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:12:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By nobby:

Originally Posted By bosifus:
It seems pretty simple to me;

Kids are money and time magnets. Food, clothing, school supplies, educational supplies, hobbies blah blah blah ad infinitim...

Pure and simple it's an investment in the future. Who knows when the next great mind of this nation will show up. People have to have kids willingly and might I add happily to make that happen to any medium of success.

I take exception to the examples given. The last time I looked there wasn't a single one of my friends with kids that are living as well as the childless masses this country produces these days. No Bling bling car, house etc... Most people are investing their money either in education investments or retirement funds etc. At least those of us who give a shit do I should say.

I have friends that float this arguement all the time. It's self centered at best. We all contribute in one way or another to the well being of this country. Some in ways other than what they think is fair. Get used to it.


You have kids, right?


You don't have kids, right?
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:14:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By bosifus:
Kids are money and time magnets. Food, clothing, school supplies, educational supplies, hobbies blah blah blah ad infinitim...



So someone with kids deserves to pay less taxes than I, who has no kids?
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:17:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By evo462:

Originally Posted By bosifus:
Kids are money and time magnets. Food, clothing, school supplies, educational supplies, hobbies blah blah blah ad infinitim...



So someone with kids deserves to pay less taxes than I, who has no kids?


Tell me, who is contribution more to this countries future growth and prosperity?

Who will fight tomorrow's wars and pay tomorrows taxes? You?
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:17:42 PM EST
The country is better off when people have more money to spend on the upbringing of their kids and less financial pressure raising them.
Link Posted: 4/10/2008 6:18:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By evo462:

Originally Posted By bosifus:
Kids are money and time magnets. Food, clothing, school supplies, educational supplies, hobbies blah blah blah ad infinitim...



So someone with kids deserves to pay less taxes than I, who has no kids?


Apparently so. See, couple A needs to make sure couple B's kid has the best. Couple A needs to find even higher paying jobs to ensure this.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top